University of Illinois: The State Prevails

Robert E. Wall graduated from the University of Illinois in 1957. Presently he is a research fellow in applied mathematics and a resident tutor in Dunster House.

Higher education in the Midwest is entrusted primarily to the state universities, the sprawling, peculiarly American institutions renowned for huge enrollments and semi-professional football teams. Unlike the privately endowed schools of the East, they grew not out of religious zeal or emulation of the great universities of Europe, but from the demands of an increasingly technological economy.

My own undergraduate institution, the University of Illinois, was chartered under the first Morrill act of 1862, which gave federal land to each state for the "endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life."

These "land-grant" colleges (which thus began with what many fear may be the free university's end-a grant from the federal government) have been faithful to their pragmatic ancestry, wedding agriculture and the mechanic arts to other studies to produce an academic melange that is comprehensive or chaotic, depending on one's point of view.

At Illinois, the Colleges of Agriculture and Engineering comprise about 25 percent of the undergraduate enrollment, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences about 40 per cent, with the rest divided among Commerce, Fine and Applied Arts, Education, Aviation, Journalism, and Physical Education. Many states (Michigan, for example) have chosen to separate the "cow college" from the "university," and California has gone even further in specializing its various branches. Illinois, however, except for the medical school and a two-year undergraduate division in Chicago, mixes everything happily on the Champaign-Urban campus, a fact which was impressed upon me in my freshman year when I found my chemistry section meeting directly opposite a room whose frosted glass door proclaimed disquietingly, "Swine."

Illinois' enrollment of over 35,000 ranks it seventh in size among the universities in the country, but it will soon grow dramatically when a new four-year undergraduate branch in Chicago is completed. Nine thousand students are expected when it opens in 1964, and within five years it will expand to 20,000 with provisions "to grow as conditions demand beyond that time."

Extravagant Growth

Responding to the increasing population and increasing demand for college education with extravagant growth is a characteristic result of the egalitarian educational philosophy of the Illinois State Legislature, which has virtually complete financial control over the University. The right of every citizen to a free elementary and secondary education has long been recognized, and this principle has been extended to the conclusion that a college education also is a tax-bought commodity which is collectable on demand. Until very recently, the only requirement for admission to the University of Illinois was graduation from an accredited high school in the state. Students who stood in the lowest quarter of their classes were received on probation, but admitted, nonetheless. Non-residents, on the other hand, have always been required to present evidence of somewhat greater ability (and are charged more for tuition), but now that the flood of applicants and the physical limitations have forced some kind of restriction on admissions, even for residents, plan has been instituted for deferring inferior students until late in the application period and accepting them only if space remains.

For the student, a state university may be the only opportunity for college education, particularly if he is impecunious (tuition for Illinois residents in $85 a term) or if his qualifications are unlikely to recommend him to a more selective school. However, the lack of selectivity which is decreed by the State imposes a serious burden on the University. Each year hundreds of students with infinitesimal academic capabilities must be admitted, housed, fed and seated in classrooms. And, unless standards are to be thoroughly profaned, after a semester or two they must be flunked out. The proponents of this trial-by-fire policy argue that no admissions system is perfect and, therefore, that everyone, particularly at a state university, should have the chance to prove himself. On the other hand, many professors and administrators decry the wastefulness of the policy, which strains the facilities of the University to accommodate a large number of unqualified students who will shortly be sent ingloriously home with little or nothing to show for their efforts.

The plans for the new Chicago branch indicate, among other things, that the adherents of greater selectivity have been silenced at least for the moment, and that the Legislature still regard the optimum size of the University as that which will have space for all who apply. Some other states have established two-year junior colleges for the doubtfully prepared or those with limited educational aims, but very little relief of this kind for the University of Illinois seems to be in prospect.

Results of State Support

The consequences of state support for the University of Illinois are far reaching and entail much more than misplaced educational egalitarianism. For example, in addition to producing the skilled graduates and the practically oriented research that will benefit the State, the University is also expected to provide a number of miscellaneous services for the general public. These may vary from advice on problems of agriculture and home economics to medical care for crippled children. The Administration boasts that its tripartite commitment to "education, research, and service" makes it a "new and American contribution to the idea of a university," and it is true that one does not often think of universities as agencies for the administration of public welfare services.

One problem is that there seems to be no clear-cut limit to the types of activities that are thought suitable for the University to perform. Another is the implication that the University must justify its maintenance to the taxpayers by the materials benefits which they receive from it. A pamphlet from the University's Office of Public Information points out that "traceable returns from research alone repay every year to the people of Illinois more than the cost of building and operating the University since it opened in 1868."

The fact that the State is financially responsible for the University need not entail regulation of its other activities, but it is certain that the State would not long maintain an institution whose policies were widely at variance with its own. When matters of academic freedom or the expression of controversial opinions brings the interests of the University and the State government into direct opposition, the State of Illinois prevails. Harvard may have the luxury of debating how much governmental influence it can tolerate; the central problem of the state university is to survive in virtually complete dependence on a customarily narrow-minded and tight-fisted legislature.

One instance of the University Legislature conflict was the prohibition of political speakers on the campus which prevailed while I was an undergraduate. The reason given for this peculiar ban was that the State could not give the appearance of sponsoring any political party and might become involved in disputes over "equal time."

I recall that the rule was once relaxed, provisionally, to allow Senator Estes Kefauver then running for Vice-President to make an innocuous campaign speech in the University Auditorium in which he deplored the biological effects of nuclear testing. The Administration seemed enormously relieved when the whole affair passed without incident, and even without comment from the Legislature. I don't know the present policy regarding political speeches at the University of Illinois, but I am fairly certain that any wildly unorthodox opinions such as those of Malcolm X or Gov. Barnett here recently would still be denied a platform.

The scrupulous avoidance of controversy comes from the belief that any words spoken on University property somehow imply State endorsement. This fallacy was applied in earnest during the memorable hulla-baloo of 1960 when an assistant professor of biology was fired for expressing publicly his unconventional views on premarital sexual intercourse. True, he was eventually allowed to complete his term, but not until the Board of Trustees of the University, pressured by the American Association of University Professors and an avalanche of disastrous publicity, had overridden the firm decisions of both the Department of Biology and the President.

In all fairness, it must be recognized that the hapless professor would probably not have fared better at many private institutions who avow a more liberal philosophy, but the uneasy resolution of the case left unanswered the question of just what bounds circumscribe the freedom of inquiry and expression at the University.

Unconcern

But whatever excitement about events at his University may be engendered in the national press, the typical Illinois student remains uncerned. I found that all but a few seemed perfectly content with comfortable orthodoxy and had almost no interest in international or national affairs, or in politics on any level.

Only a few crusading individuals, usually from the Student Senate or the campus newspaper, The Daily Illini, ever protested against such things as the ban on political speakers; most students were probably unaware that it existed. The one generalization which seems to me most nearly true of the Illinois undergraduate is that his sphere of interest begins with himself and may extend as far as the University but usually not beyond his own dormitory or fraternity house.

Illinois has more national social fraternities (57) and sororities (27) than any other university in the country. They are privately owned, usually provide both meals and lodging for their members, and although only about one-fourth of the undergraduates belong to them, they have long been a firmly established part of the University.

All the unfavorable publicity you may have read recently about fraternities is doubled in spades at Illinois. They are excessively competitive and preoccupied with their position in the Byzantine complexity of the social order at the University; they demand an inordinate amount of time from their members, usually to be wasted on some competitive project; and they perpetuate a through going anti intellectual attitude despite any attempts by the University to the contrary.

Most still maintain policies of racial and ethnic discrimination, based on the dictates of their national organizations and/or their own choice. The N.A.A.C.P. and other groups, working in part through the Interfraternity Council at the University, have sought to end racial discrimination in fraternities, or at least to have the flagrantly racist clauses removed from fraternity charters. So far, they have had little success, but the pressure for change is undeniably increasing.

Financial Difficulties

They are also being harassed from another side-this the financial one-because of decreasing undergraduate enthusiasm for joining fraternities. The total number of men being "rushed" last fall was the lowest in five years. The houses are reportedly filled to only 77 per cent of capacity, and some are in serious difficulty. Fraternity alumni, alarmed at the trend, see a nefarious plot afoot. Joseph Hinshaw past President of the Illinois Bar Association, recently discussed the problems facing fraternities today and called upon them to utilize their "basic strengths-their family-like unity, their selectiveness, and their high standards of conduct-to face hostile leftist forces."

But it probably is not a Communist conspiracy that accounts for the warning of fraternities at Illinois, but the fact that they no longer offer the advantages to their members that they once did. Many of the houses are far less comfortable than the new University dormitories; the food is rarely any inducement; and now that the men-women ratio has been improved from 4-to-1 to 2-to-1, their former competitive social advantage has been much diminished. Furthermore, since the firm Calvinist tradition of the Midwest prohibits liquor anywhere on the University-including the fraternities-and there is likewise never any room permission for women guests, no fraternities can offer especially attractive license to justify their extra cost.

Thus far the University has taken no measures to ease the financial difficulties of the fraternities, despite the fact that it depends on them to feed and house one-quarter of its undergraduate population. Similarly, it has made no effort to encourage an end to their racial discrimination although such a move could easily be justified (as it has at other schools) on the basis of the control it exercises over all matters of student housing and welfare.

In addition to their avoidance of fraternities, there is evidence in other areas that the Illinois students may be increasing their intellectual pursuits. The head of the Library reported a record use of this facilities last year and attributed this trend in part to a "general intensification of student effort." An assistant professor of lolitical science commented recently on the overall quality of the students at Illinois: "After grading for three years at Harvard, I have been pleasantly surprised to find that the best exam books here are easily the equivalent of the best at Harvard and that the general quality of the books is relatively close to the Harvard average. The students, however, do not seem to realize this." He continues, "This sort of self-image and lack of confidence can only have deterimental consequence for the intellectual development of the individual student and of the University."

From my own experience, I would agree that the quality of the very best students at Illinois is on a part with that of the best at any of the more prestigious institutions. It is also undeniable that in many departments of the University the faculty and the instruction they impart are first-rate, and that the graduate schools, particularly in the natural sciences are excellent.

What more then, does Illinois require to achieve true eminence among the great educational institutions of the world? First of all, it needs to concentrate on the excellence that it has and improve upon it so far as possible. The recent establishment of a long overdue program to encourage the development of superior students was a welcome start in this direction. Through this program and others of its kind, the University must increase respect for learning among the student body. To do so effectively may require a thorough overhauling of the present dormitory and fraternity-sorority systems to give them some kind of intellectual awakening, or it may necessitate giving different kinds of degrees to graduates of those parts of the University which really amount to little more than advanced trade schools.

In the long run, however, the University will achieve real distinction only when the Legislature relaxes its paternalism and allows the free exchange of ideas, no matter how controversial, among both faculty and students. Then, in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom, the University will be able to give something much more valuable than instruction--on education